Team 5

Mahjuba Azizpour

Kyle Sander

John Canaban

Table of ContentsSlide 3……………………………………………………………………………..…SWOT Analysis

Slide 4&5…………………………………………………………………………….Goals and Objectives

Slide 6………………………………………………………………………..……..Segments

Slide 7…………………………………………………………………………..…..Competition

Slide 8…………………………………………………………………………..….Target Market Segments

Slide 9&10……………………………………………………………………....…Capture the Value (Allround)

Slide 11……………………………………………………………………….……Capture the Value (Allround+)

Slide 12………………………………………………………………………...….Capture the Value (Allright)

Slide 13………………………………………………………………….……….. Communicate the Value (Push & Pull)

Slide 14……………………………………………………………………....…….Deliver the Value

Slide 15……………………………………………………………………..………Competitive Strategy

Slide 16……………………………………………………………………………..BCG Matrix

Slide 17………………………………………………………………………….….Portfolio Analysis

Slide 18 & 19………………………………………………………………..……..ANSOF Matrix

Slide 20 & 21…………………………………………..…………………………..Revenue, Cost, Margin, Net Income Analysis

Slide 22 & 23………………………………………………………..…………….Capacity Analysis / What if Analysis

Slide 24, 25, & 26………………………………………….……….……………..Price Analysis

Slide 27,28,29, &30…………………………………………..………….………..Expenditure/Budget Allocation

Slide 31&32……………………………………………..……………….…..…….Cumulative Analysis

Slide 33,34……………………………………………………….…………………….Performance / Cum. Results

Slide 35………………………………………………………………………..…..What We Should Have Done/ Advice

S.W.O.T Analysis STRENGTHS:

- Market Leader

- Well established brand

- Highest satisfaction among customers

- Most frequently purchased product in market

- High Brand Awareness

- Highest Trial Level

- Strong R&D Team

WEAKNESSES- High Cost of Goods Sold compared to

competitors

- Brand Formulation includes Alcohol – Not

Suitable for Families with Young Children

- Limited Product Line – Specifically Allergy

- Small Starting Sales Force in Comparison to

Competition.

OPPORTUNITIES- Create a Social Media Website to Answer

Customer Questions and Concerns

- Reformulate Allround by Removing Alcohol

Creating Ability to Target Families with

Children

- Introduce a 12hr. Capsule to Appeal to New

Market Segments Desiring Longer Relief

- Introduce Allergy Medication

- Highest % of Brand Share and Marketing

Among Young Families

- Retention Ratio is Lower than Other Brands

THREATS- Besthelp Recommended More than

Allround

- Introduction of New Competing Products by

Competitors

- Believe and Defogg is Competition for

Allright

Goals & Objective

Metric Goal Reality Reasoning

Average Retail Price Keep a steadily

increasing retail price.

In the practice

round we tend to

drop the price when

the simulation told

us price was too

high, rather than

allowing inflation to

catch up.

Sales Force Increase Sales force in

beginning above

competition

Keep sales force above

competition

Being a market

leader it occurred

to us that we

started off with a

low sales force in

comparison with

our competitors.

Goals & Objectives

Metric Goal Reality Reasoning

Return On Marketing Overall increase our

Return on Marketing

We drastically

decreased in our

marketing return

throughout the practice

rounds

Stock Price Have a stock price that

rises every round

Does not have to rise

in any particular

increments

Had stock price drop

several times during

practice rounds and

wanted to improve on

this.

Market Segments

Competition

Company Name Sales (millions) Brands on the Market

B&B Healthcare 355 Believe: 4-hr multi-symptom

cold liquid

Curall Pharmaceuticals 199 Coughcure: 4-hr cough

liquid

Driscol Corporation 255 Defogg: 4-hr allergy capsule

Dripstop: nasal cold spary

Dryup: 4-hr multi-symptom

cold capsule

Ethik Incorporated 396 Effective: nasal cold spary

End: 4-hr cough liquid

Extra: 12-hr cold capsuel

Target Market SegmentNote: After Introduction of Final Product Allright

Market Segment Cold Cough Allergy

Young Singles Allround

Allround+

Allround Allround

Allright

Allround+

Young Families Allround Allround Allround

Mature Families Allround Allround Allround

Allright

Empty Nesters Allround

Allround+

Allround Allround

Allright

Allround+

Retired Allround

Allround+

Allround Allround

Allround+

Capture the Value - Allround

Allround original formula

● Removed Alcohol

✓ Removed drowsiness

✓ Target Consumers with Children

Analg. Antihist. Decon. Cough

Supp.

Expect. Alcoh. Description

Allroud 1000 4 60 30 0 20 4hr. Multi Liquid

Analg. Antihist. Decon. Cough

Supp.

Expect. Alcoh. Description

Allround 1000 4 60 30 0 0 4hr. Multi Liquid

● Added Expectorant

✓ Added Benefit of treating Chest Congestion

✓ Increased Doctor Recommendations

Allround Tradeoff & Symptom Relief

● Pricing as slightly higher than perceived effects

proved to be successful.

Analg. Antihist. Decon. Cough

Supp.

Expect. Alcoh. Description

Allround 1000 4 60 30 100 0 4hr. multi liquid

Brand MSRP Perceived Price Perceived Effect Purchased

Allround $8.29 Very High High 22.5%

Besthelp $6.79 Low Low 16.7%

Capture the Value - Allround+● Line Extension to Allround as a 12 hour multi-capsule for customers looking for prolonged relief

● Allround+ proved to increase sales and market share

Tradeoffs & Symptom Relief

● Pricing proved to be unsuccessful as our price ended

too high in comparison to major competitors

Analg. Antihist. Decon. Cough Supp. Expect. Alcoh Description

Allround+ 1300 8 100 0 0 0 12hr. multi capsule

Brand MSRP Perceived

Price

Perceived Effect Purchased

Allround+ $8.09 Very High Averge 7.1%

Besthelp $6.79 Low Average 23.2%

Capture the Value - Allright● Brand new product from Allstar to enter the allergy market

● 4-hr allergy capsule ND. New formula:

Tradeoffs & Symptom Relief

● Pricing got out of hand towards end of simulation but

ultimately pretty successful

Analg. Antihist. Decon. Cough Supp. Expect. Alcoh Description

Allright 0 4 60 0 0 0 4hr. Allergy Capsule

Non-drowsy

Brand MSRP Perceived

Price

Perceived

Effect

Purchased

Allright $7.78 High Very High 36.9%

Believe $5.99 Very Low High 32.2%

Communicate the Value Push

● In the very first period we drastically increased our sales force so that it was

greater than our major competitor in all categories. Then we increased it in

accordance to the growth shown in each channel, making sure we remained

higher than our main competitor.

● Along with our sales force we strived to keep our trade allowance as higher

than our competition.

Pull

● Allround - Used BMW rounds 0-8, then dropped to S&R as we felt this would

help our net income and stock price. With allround we stressed benefits and

comparison in our advertising.

● Allround+ - Used BMW throughout inception of reformulation to the end of the

simulation and stressed benefits.

● Allright - Used BMW throughout inception of the product until the end of the

simulation and stressed comparison.

● We felt promotion to be very important and consistently tried to stay ahead of

our competitors and based our decisions on this criteria.

Deliver the ValueChannels and Sales Force Allocation:

For our goal to be market leaders, we kept a close eye on both

the direct and indirect Sales Force. Due to the inconsistency and

declines of the growth on periods 2, 3, 4, and 6 for convenience

stores, we adjusted our allocations to the channels that were

growing well during that period. The results showed a

continuous climb on Share of Manufacture and Retail Sales.

Competitive Strategy

Leadership:

Our goal was to remain the market leader. Because our product was well known and

perceived highly, we kept the MSRP higher than the competition. To counter with our high MSRP, we

allocated discounts, trail size, and coupons to all our brands throughout the periods.

Differentiation:

To differentiate us from competitors, we kept our brand formulation to an all purpose multi

liquid for Allround and multi capsule for Allround+. With Allround, we were the only liquid that targeted

all 15 segments. Allround+ served as a line extension for prolonged relief.

Focus:

Our focus was with the industry growth. We allocated our expenditures according to

growth or decline of individual channels to fulfill the demand. This also helped Allround’s perception of

having high trade off value.

BCG Matrix - Growth/Share PortfolioProduct Market Share Market share

of largest

competitor

Relative

market share

Market Growth Revenue

(millions)

Allround 22.1% 14.7% 1.5 10.1% $981.34

Allround+ 5.7% 14.7% .39 10.1% $252.7

Allright 5.1% 3.9% 1.3 10.1% $225

As compared to the Standard Portfolio Graph shown on following page

Portfolio Analysis

● We were never able to move Allround into the cash cow sector of the portfolio graph

and use this money to better our other, newer products. Allround suffered

cannibalization by allright.

Ansof Matrix

Present

Markets

New

Markets

Provide discounts to existing

customers and introduce

reformulation with Allround

Provide alternative products

with Allround+ and Allright to

existing customers

Allocate and Promote

Allround to the direct and

indirect sales force by

following Industry growth

Introduce Allround+ and Allright

to new targets not familiar with

the Allstar brand

Existing Products New Products

Revenue, Cost, Margin, Net Income Analysis

● Overall gross margin rose

through the ten periods and as a

result net income rose.

● As our our cost of goods sold

rose, our gross margin fell and

net income responded

accordingly as shown by the

graphs.

Revenue, Cost, Margin, Net Income Analysis

● As our gross

margin remained

relatively stable,

our budget

expenditures

rose and this

really hurt our

marketing

efficiency.

Capacity Analysis/ What if Analysis

● We utilized full

capacity throughout

all ten periods. This

shows we were able

to continue to drive

sales.

● This drove COGS to

rise along with Net

Income

Capacity Analysis/ What if Analysis

● Gross margin remained about

50%

● We were able to increase sales

while maintaining constant

gross margin

● Fixed costs are not increasing

at the same rate as sales,

therefore net income is

increasing.

● Net Income then drives stock

price increase

● Achieving economies of scale

Price Analysis: Allround

Allround had a purchase rate of 20% with and a very high perceived price and high perceived

effect

Price Analysis: Allround+

Allround+ had a purchase rate of 7.1% with and a very high perceived price and average

perceived effect

Price Analysis: Allright

Allright had a purchase rate of 36.9% with and a high perceived price and very high

perceived effect

Expenditure/Budget Allocation ● Return on marketing mostly

coincides with return on sales.

The common factor being return.

● Periods 4 and 6 we had to spend

money due to product

reformulation and then product

launch and then saw the impact to

sales in following periods.

● The last two periods we see

marketing inefficiency as return on

sales continue to increase and

return on marketing

decreases.Management could of

better fine tuned this during these

last two periods.

Expenditure/Budget Allocation

● A sharp increase in sales

force expenditures between

periods 5 and 6 corresponds

with a sharp increase in

manufacturer sales during the

same period. This is a trend

we should have pursued

further instead of decreasing

sales force as we did

between periods 6 and 7.

● Missed opportunity

Expenditure/Budget Allocation

● Our promotions did not

show the same steady

increase as our share

of retail sales and shelf

space.

● A pull back in

promotions between

periods 7 and 8 caused

share of retail sales to

lose some momentum.

● Between periods 7 and

8 we should have

increased promotion

but at a smaller rate.

Expenditure/Budget Allocation

● Too drastic in

advertising

allocation

changes.

● Should have

maintained a

more steady

path of increase.

Cumulative Analysis:

Budget Expenditure, Net Income, Stock Price

● Net income rose steadily overall

along with with stock price which

was one of our goals.

Cumulative Analysis:

Shelf Space, Unit Sales, & Cumulative Budget

● Shelf space increased overall with

major jumps from periods 3 and 4, and

periods 5 and 6. This coincides with

major jumps in unit sales during those

same periods which reinforces the

importance of shelf space.

● You see the pull back in advertising in

period 4 and pull back in promotion in

period 7.

Performance

Share of Promotion Expenditures: Amount spent on

promotion by a company.

Outcome: The sharp rise from periods 3 to 4 and then from

periods 5 to 6 coincides with the reformulation of Allround

and the creation of Allround+ plus in period 3 and then the

launch of Allright in period 5.

Shelf Space Allocation: The amount of space allocated to a

product for display on retail store shelves. Shelf space

often depends on the sales and profit potential of the

product, as well as special arrangements between the store

and manufacturer. Promotional Allowance is another large

factor in this decision by retailers.

Outcome: Shelf space saw a sharp increase as the

promotional spending went up with the introduction of the

new formula with Allround+ and then the launch of Allright.

Share of Retail Sales: % of retail sales

Outcome: Saw impact to sales in periods following the

launching of Allround+ and Allright.

Performance / Cum. Results• Periods 0-1: The Weighted Score rose as Stock Price

and Return on Marketing increased as a result of

Promotion and Advertising increases.

• Periods 1-3: Stock Price continued to rise, however

Return on Marketing slightly decreased as Promotion and

Advertising continued to rise. This caused our Weighted

Score to drop slightly.

• Periods 3-6: Return on Marketing dropped from periods

3-4 (then recovered due to lag effect from period 4-5) and

then periods 5-6 due to the launch of new products,

however because Stock Price continued to rise driven by

quickly increasing Net Income, Weighted Score remained

fairly steady.

• Periods 6-8: Due to the lag effect of launching a new

product in period 5, Return on Marketing increased. Stock

Price increased at a slowing rate as did Net Income, as a

result of slowing increases in Promotion and this drove

our high Weighted Score down slightly.

• Periods 8-10: Stock Price increased which was driven by

increasing Net Income. Return on Marketing dropped,

while Promotions and Advertising continued to rise. This

leads to a decrease in Marketing Efficiency, and this

caused our Weighted Score to drop to its lowest point.

What should we have done differently…● Towards the end of the situation we should have increased discounts to wholesalers and those buying in bulk.

● We should have worried about increasing our price more with our competitors and according to the trade off

survey and not put so much emphasis on inflation rate in the market update.

● Try to increase demand for new products by increasing primary message in advertising.

● Keep capacity under control to keep down cost of goods sold.

● Use the What if… feature

● Use monetary resources to full potential and not worry as much on being cautious on staying in the same

spending range as competitors. As market leaders we could of invested more heavily than competitors.

● When we are growing we should not of pulled back so much in advertising and promotion.

● Better product placement for non-cannibalization

Advice to incoming management…● Do not spend your entire budget if it is not necessary, but use enough to

● As price starts to rise make sure you are giving appropriate discounts to wholesalers and those buying in bulk.

● Making pricing decisions based on inflation as well as customer feedback and satisfaction information.

● As market leaders allocate your budget accordingly and follow your own strategy rather than getting too caught

up on your competitors. Do not try to stay just one step ahead.

● Use all available tools

● Use allround as a cash cow and use this money to promote other products